Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd like to revisit this one; only coverage of the event since last AfD is that charges were dropped against the officer. Seems to be a sad event, nothing for notability here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: - factually wrong, charges dropped against the suspect Jason, investigation ongoing against the officer(s). starship.paint (exalt) 09:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Ok yes, I misred the headlines. Trouted as below, accepted. Oaktree b (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least six months of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (December, January, February, March, April, June) in articles wholly about the shooting, was tangentially mentioned in remaining month May, overall covered in four countries (USA, UK, Greece, Hungary) and 11 media outlets. Nominator should be trouted for failing to do WP:BEFORE, a simple Google search produced two three more updates - police stating there was no bodycam one police department refusing to publish bodycam, another police department stating they have no video, and Jason filing a federal lawsuit. starship.paint (exalt) 09:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: Duly trouted. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok yes I deserved that. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)11:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: May you live to be trouted another day, my friend 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All sources on this subject appear to be primary sources, which may not be used to claim notability. Without any significant secondary coverage, it fails WP:GNG. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: Uhh, do you mind explaining how the sources are primary? I'm seeing The Independent, the Asheville Citizen-Times, WTVC, and many others, which are secondary sources. It's not like it's all sourced from Kloepfer's personal blog or something. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Festucalex Per WP:RS: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources. I'll ask you the opposite question. Why would they be secondary sources? Primary sources are those that provide new information or raw facts about the subject as they become available. Secondary sources are those that provide analysis and commentary on primary sources. WP:PRIMARYNEWS goes into more detail about how this relates to news organizations, but the vast majority of sources from news outlets are primary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: That doesn't apply here. The coverage is WP:SUSTAINED, and many sources provide analysis of the situation (per A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events in WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Here are some non-exhaustive examples: this source is a deep dive investigative report on the matter. An analysis is provided here and here and here as well. WP:PRIMARYNEWS, as far as I understand it, would apply if all the sources were BREAKING: A MAN HAS BEEN SHOT! which is not the case. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single one of those is an update to provide new information in an ongoing story. They are not retrospective analyses, they are describing the events as they unfold. Your main example of a secondary source is a literal interview, and it even has "new details" in the headline. It doesn't get more primary than that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: This just makes absolutely no sense. Just because these articles add a tidbit of new detail to a month-old story (which is then analyzed and commented upon) makes them primary? Well, say goodbye to 99% of Wikipedia's sources! The perfect source according to your argument would be an article written out of the blue 4 months after an incident with strictly no new information whatsoever, which is just not how news coverage works. WP:PRIMARYNEWS is meant to protect articles from unverified information written in the first moments after an event. As for the interview article, you can see that it was conducted between a reporter and another reporter [who] dug into the relationship between the two departments and what happened that night. It doesn't get more secondary than that. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only sources are news coverage and no one created additional sources after all the information came out, then it should not have an article on Wikipedia. If an event is notable, then historians or other academics will study it and publish their analyses in books or journals. If they don't do that, it means it was just a news story that has no historic significance and is not notable. That's why we require secondary sources. It would make no sense to have an article for every random event that occurred, got printed in the news for a bit, and then had no further relevance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I disagree that most of the sources fall under WP:RSBREAKING because they do not match what WP:RSBREAKING considers breaking news. It states that our articles does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia … The Template:current, Template:recent death, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event… The shooting was assuredly not a current event, it ended in December 2022 and I think only one of the sources is from December 2022. WP:RSBREAKING further refers to WYNC’s Breaking News Consumer's Handbook, which says that In the immediate aftermath, news outlets will get it wrong ... "whatever you might hear in the first couple of hours after a major news event, you should probably take it all with a grain of salt," Again, only one of the sources was published in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. starship.paint (exalt) 02:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) Per WP:USEPRIMARY some of the sources can be considered secondary because they describes, comments on, or analyzes primary sources (in which case, it is secondary). The surveillance video of the shooting is obviously primary source material, and so are police press releases about the shooting, as well as the lawsuit complaint about the shooting. Some of the sources describe/comment/analyse such material, and thus can be considered as secondary sources, I will list such commentary and anaylsis below. starship.paint (exalt) 13:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons, commentary and analysis of primary sources (video, press releases, lawsuit), which means these parts are secondary sources. starship.paint (exalt) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. To Vima Greek Σοκ προκαλεί το νέο σκάνδαλο αστυνομικής βίας στις ΗΠΑ, όταν αστυνομικοί της ομάδας SWAT πυροβόλησαν εν ψυχρώ έναν άοπλο άνδρα όσο αυτός ακολουθούσε τις εντολές τους και άνοιξε την πόρτα του τροχόσπιτού του στη Βόρεια Καρολίνα. (‘the new police brutality scandal in the U.S. is causing shock when SWAT team officers shot an unarmed man in cold blood…’)
  2. WLOS The surveillance footage released by Kloepfer appears to show a conflicting account of the event.
  3. Cherokee Scout Dramatic video of a Murphy man being shot by the Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT team appears to contradict key details of a press release…
  4. RTL.HU Hungarian A férfi lakásában felszerelt biztonsági kamera felvételei, amiket január közepén hoztak nyilvánosságra, azonban már egészen mást mutatnak. (‘…they show something completely different’) … felesége pedig csak a szerencsének köszönheti, hogy a még mindig érkező lövedékek egyike sem találja el. (‘his wife can only thank luck that none of the bullets that are still coming hit her.’)
  5. The Independent The press release initially shared by the office claimed that Mr Kloepfer “engaged in a verbal altercation with officers” and that he then came out of the home and “confronted” police which supposedly led to the 41-year-old being shot. But the surveillance shows a different version of events.
  6. Smoky Mountain News In an explosive federal lawsuit… After Kloepfer published his video Jan. 18, Smith issued a new press release that downplayed the involvement of the agency he oversees. He stated — incorrectly, according to the lawsuit and supported by public records previously reported by The Smoky Mountain News — that neither he nor Jacobs were on scene and that the information published Dec. 13 was the result of information provided by the CIPD.
  7. Blue Ridge Public Radio According to the initial police account, Kloepfer confronted officers, but private security footage showed Kloepfer and his wife awakened by the SWAT team. The video showed Kloepfer following their commands at the door, and he is shot a few seconds later.
  8. Ashville Citizen Times saying in a news release he confronted officers and engaged in a verbal altercation. But home security video posted by Kloepfer later contradicted that, and the sheriff issued a new statement about the incident.
  9. This source provides no new information about the shooting, but analyses it as relevant to other events. Smoky Mountain News During its April 6 meeting, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Council unanimously approved an ordinance change … The vote comes on the heels of a Dec. 13, 2022, Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT response in which officers fired at Murphy resident Jason Harley Kloepfer…
  10. This source provides no new information about the shooting, but analyses it as relevant to other events. Asheville Citizen Times Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Chief Richard Sneed has signed a law making police videos no longer public records, a move that comes amid a state investigation into a tribal police shooting. … The ordinance was first proposed March 2, less than three months after the shooting of an unarmed Murphy man, Jason Kloepfer, in his home … An initial statement by law enforcement said Kloepfer had confronted officers and engaged in a verbal altercation. But the security video he posted to social media contradicted that.
  • (3) In light of (1) and (2) above, this article satisfies WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shooting_of_Jason_Harley_Kloepfer_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1165293336"